User talk:TonyIsTheWoman

Scully Effect vandalism revert
Hi there!

You've reverted an edit of mine here. Would you mind explaining why you did that, and why you called my edit vandalism? I've read both of the cited sources and they are both tabloid-like publications; not only that, the first one only makes a one sentence remark at the end of the article mentioning the Scully Effect as it is not the actual subject of the article, and I find it hard to consider a sidenote-like mention in a pop-culture magazine substantial evidence for a sociological phenomenon's existence. The second cited source is even worse, it's practically just a character study of Scully, and the only factual information it contains is that the actor playing Scully said that the production team received letters from people who said they were inspired by Scully.

So, my questions are:


 * 1) How do you consider either of those two articles an appropriate source for the statement in the WP article?
 * 2) If you do not, could you please readd the citation needed tag in place of the citations?
 * 3) If you don't want to do that since I didn't convince you, what's the appropriate action for me to take if I still wish to remove the citations? I'm not well versed in the ways of Wikipedia bureaucracy, and I'm not sure how to bring this up as a topic of discussion before more users so that we can agree on a decision.

Thanks! — Underyx (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey!

I appreciate you reading the sources and explaining your edits, instead of merely leaving a hasty, snarky remark in the edit summary. The two first sources are analytic articles in science/culture magazines; they indicate and cite exactly what's stated in the sub-category - the existence of the referred phenomenon and people's awareness of it. The second article indeed doesn't explain the phenomenon in a similar length as does the first article, therefor it's a secondary source and not a stand alone.

Moreover, in addition to these articles, the sub-category sources an actual academic study about the subject, an article in which the actor talks about it and an article where a scientist addresses the phenomenon - more than sufficient for a single paragraph addressing the phenomenon, as it's not that common that you find actual academic studies and scientists' citations as refs on WP culture/entertainment article. The academic article and the other sources could be used as multi refs and also placed in the sentence above, however it may appear redundant and current (single) use of sources appears adequate.

TNX for your time. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson - Films Key table revert
Hi there,

I see you've reverted my edit here. I removed the Key table because it is not standard, provides nothing over using the Notes column, and makes the list of Films harder to read (particularly on mobile) as the reader has to refer back to a separate table. Additionally, the "Indicates a film that has not yet released" is redundant as Viceroy's House is in Post-production (as it states in the Notes column) which necessarily implies that it has not yet released. Can you tell me why you want to keep the Key table? Because I can't see any reason for it. - Henrym (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Henrym,

The specific key table wasn't invented for that article, nor was it first used there; it has been used on 'featured' lists (best lists Wiki has to offer).--TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you point to some specifically? Key tables certainly have their uses, but not when each key is only used once, and not when there's already a Notes column which can be used - as on every other filmography I've seen - for the purpose.


 * Looking through some other filmographies linked to by the Featured lists page (selected randomly I swear!): Amy Adams, James Franco, James Cameron, Nicole Kidman; none of these lists use a key table, but instead use the Notes column for exactly the same purpose. - Henrym (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here, for example. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dana Scully
I see you've been doing a lot of work on Gillian Anderon's article, and that for Dana Scully too. A while back, a few users starting working on a draft of the Scully article in a sandbox in my userspace, here; I don't know if it's much use to you but if anything in that version is worth incorporating into what you're working on, feel free to steal it as I'm not sure anyone else is actively following up on that draft. G RAPPLE   X  12:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * TNX for bringing that to my attention. I'll make sure to check it out, when I'll have a chance. :) --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Kristine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeffrey Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm Wtwilson3. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Craig Ferguson. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! —&#160;&#160; &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Helen Mirren in Caligula
My reason for undoing your edit was WP:CENSOR, and so i provided refs to show that she did appear in Caligula (film). I have seen the film and in my opinion (and it will always been an opinion) Caligula is more pornographic than it is erotic, it was after all produced by Bob Guccione, the founder of Penthouse magazine. In retrospect I don't think Mirren's performace was notable except hat it was her choice to appear in a semi-pornographic/erotic movie and so I think the placing of the sentence about her appearring in Caligula is WP:UNDUE, I think i will move the comment down more into the body of the article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter lead section
Hello. It seems like you don't know so much about this. The section was similiarly used in Cate Blanchett, too. There is no problem with using this type. Your edit has undone because there wasn't good reason. Have a nice day. Sebastian James (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, dude. The point of editing is to actually improve existing content. What's applicable in one case, isn't necessarily applicable in another. I appreciate your input. Have a lovely day too, buddy. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Isabelle Huppert
Hi, no offence was meant with my altering of the content that you added. The page I mentioned does in fact mention avoiding "puffery" terms such as "legendary", "great", "acclaimed" etc.. which is why I removed "garnered acclaim", nothing to do with your assertion that "I don't like it".

As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main article, that means anything in the lead should also appear in the main article, and before my edit the critics' choice & Independent spirit nominations did not appear in the main article, so my edit was consistent with that policy. I personally don't think that critics' choice or Independent spirit nominations are that notable (compared to the more established Golden Globes) but in the coming weeks she may (hopefully) receive BAFTA Cesar & Oscar nominations, so the critics' choice & Independent noms would be redundant to the lead anyway. I also have reasonable sight and I'm not that old!!, so with respect, there's no need to capitalise words for me. L1975p (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey I do apologise if my edit summary seemed like it was lacking courtesy and I certainly meant no disrespect by capitalising words - I promise! I'm aware of WP:WORDS and agree that puffery and weasel words ("major", "one of his best", etc) should be avoided. However, "received critical acclaim" is a standard and acceptable manner of phrasing; syntax that is accepted not only on wp:Good articles, but on wp:Featured articles as well.

I also agree that before adding data to lead, it should be elaborated enough in the article, according to Wiki's policy. Thus, I didn't object when you removed the list of directors from lead, despite the fact that I do find it quite informative actually, given her repertoire. The article is very short at this point and we should be careful when adding major data to lead.

You've reduced her Molière Award nods in one of your recent edits, here. I'm sure it was not intentional, but we all could be more careful with our edits.

I certainly agree that not every award, nomination and mention on critics list worthy of mention; I do try to keep it concise and clean as possible. I agree - for example - that the Gotham Award should not be included in the lead, but it is of course a matter of POV. However, I do think that the lead is currently quite clean and doesn't contain redundant data. We should, of course, prevent the awards and nod mentions from becoming a long ass list, if/when(?) she'll continue to receive accolades for the 2 roles. @ BAFTA - she's not eligible this year with Elle, but she just might get one for Things to Come (just received a London Critics' nod). ;) --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the reply, and yes we could all (including you) be more careful with our edits, and again you're right it was not intentional of me to reduce her Moliere nominations (especially since I was the one who added them to the lead in the first place in 2014). Six became five when I removed the (very) long list of International directors she's worked with that was added to the lead by an IP. Also, I have no issue with the list of directors she's worked with being added, but that list does not belong in the lead, so it's up to the IP who added them (or you if you want that info included) to include that list in the main article.


 * I do still think it's best to avoid terms such as "acclaim", especially when it comes to an actress such as Huppert, who has probably been acclaimed for half the films she's made. Why only say she garnered acclaim for her 2016 films? (recent bias?), why not also say she was acclaimed for The Lacemaker (BAFTA) or La Ceremonie (Cesar) or La Pianiste (various) etc... or don't the BAFTA, Cesar, Cannes, Venice wins point to her acclaim?. Encyclopedia's deal in facts. Facts are she is French, she is an actor/actress, & she has won awards. I think that mentioning those awards make potentially POV terms such as acclaim, redundant. L1975p (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we could incorporate directors' list in the article.

I reckon it was phrased as "international critical acclaim" [sic], but got lost in the numerous recent edits. I think that one might be more fitting, actually. We're only in the middle of the awards season and the mentioned film is already her most awarded film performance. I would not mention the long list of awards and nominations in the lead, or even in the article, that's why I believe that the current phrasing is concise enough. If you'd agree, I shall add the international part. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Yeah I think (for now) it's OK as it stands. As you say, we're only part way through awards season so it will probably change. Elle has got her American acclaim, though she did have American attention before (for the The Piano Teacher she was 2nd with the LA critics & National Society) but she's always had International acclaim. She has been one of the most "Internationally acclaimed" actresses since the 70's, with a BAFTA (Britain) & two Venice wins (Italy) pointing to this. The truth is this is the year she seems to be getting a real Oscar push (particular American acclaim rather than international) as one of the best actresses not to have been previously nominated.L1975p (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure it will look different in the end of this award season. With the constant daily updates, rephrasing of the lead could be a real bitch. Therefore, I hope to touch it as less as possible.

Don't want to jinx anything, so I'll refrain from Oscar-talk; only say that I think it's gonna be between her and Portman. Anyway, have a good evening! (Just boldly assuming that you're from the UK) ;) --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea Handler
Hello TonyIsTheWoman, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you have removed my revision in the Chelsea Handler entry about her being anti-Trump and moving to Spain. I had it documented as I'm sure you saw. I know it's not the most flattering thing to write about her, but it is factual. The Lena Dunham entry has her thoughts about moving over the Trump election, and that seems to have held. Thanks! Asc85 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! When adding data, we must check its notability and remember What Wikipedia is not, as we can't have third of a section (Personal life, in this case) dedicated to the subject. Following WP:BLP is crucial, as we ought to add data in a moderated and responsible way. Right now there's a mention of her being critical of Trump and supporting Clinton - which seems more than suffice. I would agree that a person actually making a relocation is worth of mentioning and even elaborating about, in moderate manner of course.TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Viceroy's House (film)
Look at the and the official leading cast order in it. Please do not revert this correction. It's so sad that when someone wants to make a correction to an article, some editors accuse us of promotion. :( 103.255.115.252 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree that current lead with both Qureshi and Gambon seems inclusive and one that fully represents the main cast. Really no reason to be upset about. Cheers! TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) 103.255.115.252 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Reception of the film was deeply polarizing. To be fair to the film and director; actual quotes were used, rather than summarizing their conclusions. This resulted in some stilted language, but the alternative unfair treatment of the film. The refs were as accurate as possible with the hope of avoiding broken links. I hope this serves the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.13.130 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TNX for the message. Please refill the added refs, adding wikilinks and keep it as encyclopedic as possible. Dot goes before the refs. I trust that you'll bring it to the level it needs to be. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bedelia Du Maurier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bedelia Du Maurier, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Bedelia Du Maurier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)